Will America ever reach equality??

I am a senior in high school, doing an iSearch project. For this project, I need outside sources to voice their opinion about this controversial question. So what do YOU think? Do you think people will ever fully accept everyone regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation? If so, when? Think about it...over time we've freed slaves, got women's right to vote, a black president, does it just take lots of time?
If you answer this, and if your comfortable with sharing, please include your occupation. What made you feel the way you do about this question? Thank you so much everyone!
-Madison

Dec 13 2012:
Madison, You have received good and bad advice it is your job to evaluate each. As you seem to be stuck on same sex equality we will evaluate that. What does that mean to you ... they can be recognized as a couple ... married .... treated as equals to opposite sex marriages .....

To accept as Edward defined it is completely different that to reconize a same sex marriage. The legal ramifications are massive. What are the factors involved in insurance alone? Medical significance? In law (sodomy is illegal)? In religion?

It is no longer a question of same sex .... but all that goes with it.

No offense to you ... but the youth want instant change to the culture. Change evolves slowly and I think that is a good thing. The baby boomers who were once hippies and wanted to change the world are now part of the establishment.

So along with your paper ... I would suggest that you write your thoughts and a conclusion. Revisit that paper at thirty and again document your thoughts and conclusions ... again at ... you get the idea. The stages of your life will show the differences in your decision making. As a student, young and single, married, employed, a parent ,,, Your values will change with each of these events.

Read the Constitution and how blacks and indians are described as voters. Investigate why the civil war was fought. Why some of the laws and the constitution were changed. Don't just read the cover ... read the book. Ask why.

All the best. Bob

PS: If you go to a liberal site such as this one you will get liberal atheist views. Seek a balance.

Dec 13 2012:
"The legal ramifications are massive. What are the factors involved in insurance alone? Medical significance? In law (sodomy is illegal)? In religion?"

Back in 2003 the US supreme court ruled that any laws against sodomy are unconstutional, so no, it's not illegal. Religious ramifications are irrelevant in countries with secular constitutions, such as the United States. It basically comes down to the question of whether or not the religious views of a majority (statewide majority, since on a federal level a majority of the population supports gay marriage) can be legal grounds to restrict the personal freedoms of a minority. The answer is, of course, a loud and clear "no", it's just a matter of time before the supreme court makes it official.

Your use of 'equality' is extremely broad. Individual freedom also means the right to associate with those of my own choosing. If my idea of social equality is not the same as yours, then we might always see each other as promoting social inequality.

Equality can apply to many different areas of society. The USA was founded under the principle of equality before the law, and that should be the bedrock. Supposedly, the law now provides equality in hiring practices, but there is still widespread hiring discrimination by color, sex, age and other attributes irrelevant to job performance.

The enforcement of equality, when applied across all areas of society, is a false value. Rather than extending individual rights it limits individual rights. This is should be a matter of education rather than enforcement.

Will we ever reach full equality? We are headed in that direction, but it will take a great deal of time.before the cultural norm is acceptance rather than division. It is especially difficult to promote acceptance while also promoting competition.

Presumably, you are discussing equality among humans, and still consider other species as inferior.

Dec 10 2012:
Equality= Equivalency; parity; correspondence; sameness; justice; fairness; impartiality.Acceptance= Favorable reception; approval; favor; the act of assenting or believing.Clearly these are two separate and distinct matters.It is not logical to insist that one must Accept something in order to agree it rightfully deserves Equality. The Constitution of the Unites States recognizes the Equality of all citizens. Thusly, I consider every American citizen to be my equal under the Law. That, in no way means I personally grant favorable reception; approval; or favor to every fellow citizen. Acceptance is categorically separate and distinct from Equality. As an American you are not bound to Accept my life-choices, nor I yours, but you are bound to grant me equivalency; parity; correspondence; sameness; justice; fairness; impartiality in matters of Law. The difference between these two words is monumentally important.

Dec 11 2012:
You say that "The Constitution of the Unites States recognizes the Equality of all citizens." ...It does? It gives sameness; justice; fairness to everyone? Why aren't same-sex marriages legal in all states under the Constitution? Why aren't these "types" of people treated with fairness?
I'm not saying everyone needs to accept them. (This is just one example) But they should be given the rights to have equal rights as everyone else.

Dec 11 2012:
Your guestion goes to the legislative process of our government. The Law is made by elected representatives of the People. Thus the Law should reflect the will of the majority of the People. (You have heard "Of the People. by the People. for the People?). If the majority of the voting People elect representatives who oppose a particular issue, then that issue will not become law and gain Equality. You seem to be focused on the homosexual issue so you must recognize that it may be the will of the majority of the voting People that such life-choices should not be granted Equality. Not everyone shares your position on that issue. Your question finds its answer in the express will of the People. Such is life in a Representative Republic.

Dec 11 2012:
"If the majority of the voting People elect representatives who oppose a particular issue, then that issue will not become law and gain Equality.

Such is life in a Representative Republic"

No, that's exactly what a republic is not: a republic has a constitution that gives people basic rights even when a majority of the people opposes them. In a republic you don't get to vote about freedom of expression or freedom of religion and the only reason you get to vote about gay marriage is that existing constitutions all date back many decades or even centuries to a time when their framers were not enlightened enough to support gay rights.

Dec 10 2012:
You might consider two questions separately, both from the standpoint of theory/logic and the ebbs and flows in different countries over time. One is whether you are talking about equality of opportunity and the other equality of outcome.

The reason I think it is useful to take a perspective that looks at other countries as well (though your specific interest is the United States) is that it provides a potentially broader picture of how strategies to promote equality of one kind or another unfold in a place.I also think the stories/cases might be different if you look at places that work toward equality of opportunity than those that aim for equality of outcome.

I think you are right that people, regardless of where they live, are often suspicious of those they consider to be not like them but that many people, with greater familiarity with others, grow to understand the ways in which those who seemed quite different are, in fact, fundamentally the same in many ways. People also often come to recognize and appreciate the different contributions people can make to life because of their uniqueness. Even in a biological strength, the diversity among living things is a strength. In the United States, the various freedoms to speak and write in dissent are an example of institutionalizing the value not just of differences in perspective but in sharing them.

Dec 16 2012:
I doubt you'll ever achieve perfection, but I think we're really close right now to eliminating bias, and I think with the passing years we will continue to get closer. It's very important that our courts, our laws, and our law enforcement stand up against discrimination, as they currently do. When you have the courts, laws, and police on your side you always win, because these are the strongest force in society. Someone who wants to break the laws cannot succeed if the courts and police fight to enforce the law.

Dec 11 2012:
"Do you think people will ever fully accept everyone regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation?"

Yes, but the oppressed minority shifts around: it could very well be that in the future a new group will be legally discriminated against, if only because some power structures (such as organized religion) need a scapegoat group, they could be the poor, artificially created humans or robots.

Dec 10 2012:
I am from a small town in the midwest. I can tell you that although there are many open minded accepting people, like myself, there never will be full acceptance in our lifetime at least. If never. Maybe there will be full acceptance once the human species ceases to exist. The people I was raised around were very narrow minded. As much as you try you can't change peoples' stupidity. I wish!

Over time this issue has gotten better, but I don't think it will ever go away. There will always be people who don't like or don't have respect for anyone who is different than themselves.

Dec 10 2012:
There is a worldview where equality is essential for the society's success. We do not live with that worldview as our cultural norm.

Our entire culture was founded on inequality. To be more precise, it was founded on equality for the wealthy and another equality for (within) the "race of laborers" that Adam Smith (the founder of our cultural/fiscal paradigm) spoke of. It was not founded upon the wealthy being equal to the poor. It was founded upon their being above the poor. It all boils down to $.

In his book, Wealth of Nations, (a canonical text where government and money are concerned) Adam Smith says that for our fiscal (cultural) system to work, the majority of the children of poor people must die from lack of resources that the wealthy have access to. This, he said, is natural law.

Within natural law, the scantiness of subsistence, that's caused by not enough money in the hands of the poor, puts natural limits on the "RACE" of laborers". He states that the greater number of THEIR children MUST die (in the name of the economic system), and the free market will take care of THAT by virtue of the existence of natural law.

When he speaks of the "race of laborers", he was not referring to gender or color or ethnic origins. He was talking about the poor and the middle class. Though his system required poor people, he didn't like the already extant middle class, because they would have a tendency to join together to object, and this would give them too much power, so he believed in keeping an eye and a tight leash on these.

The idea that you can rise above your given station in life is the very idea that keeps the poor enslaved while working to pass laws to help the wealthy. Though for brief periods, some could move up in the ranks, it is nearly impossible today. In the US, it is MUCH harder to do so than in other developed countries.

Poor desiring the status that wealthy hv stratify selves. If U hv no $, then religion (holier) is a + substitute